Late Night: Teach Your Children Well

Apropos of former NYC Mayor Ed Koch's op-ed today on Barack Obama's comments about Rev. Jeremiah Wright in his race speech. Koch notes that Obama's young daughters attend the church. Hate is taught. Are Wright's hate-filled sermons something he thought it was okay for them to hear and learn?

Why subject your children to the politics of hate?

This is an open thread. Please remember to be civil and respect the comment rules.

Update: Comments at 200 and now closed.

< Double Voting Investigation in Houston | Why The Obama/Clinton Rules Led Us To This Rough Campaign >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll never make it through another (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:59:18 AM EST
    discussion of Rev. Wright and the Obama family.  Too emotional.  But here is an interesting article about George McGovern's views (he has endorsed Clinton but is comparing the difficulties of a black man and a white women attaining the Presidency):


    agreed, thanks for picking another topic (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:08:20 AM EST
    I just msde this an open thread.

    Thanks. Those Wright posts today (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:11:05 AM EST
    totally pushed me over the top.

    There was a debate where Senator Obama (none / 0) (#197)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    had expressed views that he is concerned about what his children watch on TV, and I am not sure if it was regarding passing some regulatory thing .. he said no, I don't want "all" rules to dictate what goes on TV, but also the primary responsibility lies with the parents

    Well, McG (none / 0) (#6)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:20 AM EST
    is only repaying the favor, seeing that there's a long history.

    Frankly, Koch is. . .about as credible (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:00:54 AM EST
    as David Brooks. If I'm not mistaken, he endorsed W in 2004.

    I don't much care for his views myself (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:45 AM EST
    but I did think the point about his daughters was  worth mentioning, plus it brought the song to mind as I was reading it and it's a great song.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:11:11 AM EST
    I think the mind reading he does with respect to Obama's statement about his Grandmother is off base.

    Have you read Christopher Hitchen's (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:12:18 AM EST
    piece on Obama and his maternal grandmother and the speech?  I haven't.  Just saw the headline.

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:14:39 AM EST
    Hitchens is hot and cold. Mostly cold.

    One of the byproducts (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:08:57 AM EST
    Of getting more and more pushed out of the Democratic Party is that I can enjoy the hysterics of people like Hitchens totally guilt free.

    LOL. That's so true. nt (none / 0) (#130)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:44:52 AM EST
    I just read it (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:46:29 AM EST
    It was spot on, in my opinion. I don't like Hitchens very much - among other things, I think he has some 'women issues'. One thing I do like about him is that he is a non-apologetic atheist.

    Anyway, the article was very good. He eviscerates church-based divisiveness from every angle, white and black. I'm a fan of consistency.


    That's (none / 0) (#189)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:13:10 AM EST
    what my husband likes about him--he's an atheist.  In the U. S., we have trouble realizing that very few people in Europe (6%) attend any kind of formal church services on a regular basis.

    "Just Roll Tape" (none / 0) (#140)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:06:55 AM EST
    Stephen Stills released a CD last year of rediscovered solo audition tape sessions he did of many of the CSNY hits he wrote. It's called Just Roll Tape.

    It is an amazing CD, rough around the edges but clearly showing his astonishing talent on these haunting, beautiful songs.

    Not trying to sell anything here. Just thought you might like it.


    He still seems to have some crediblity (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:17:32 AM EST
    around here. He just did an appearance with the new Gov on Sunday and was also at the swearing in along with everyone else. Can't remember if he endorsed W, but he's still a go to for comments.

    Of course, I may be judging his appeal wrong because our local media isn't one of the cable networks ;) How freakin' sad is that. Cable news has tanked.


    MLK said this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:22:55 AM EST
    But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

    That was the one oh so very crucial thing that went missing from Obama's speech.  He addressed America to let us know he understood why Wright's sermons were wrong and divisive, and he addressed us then again to let us know that should we continue to dwell on Wright's sermons, then we were being wrong and divisive ourselves, but he never turned around, and addressed his community, the Trinity congregation.

    There was no moment in the speech where he began:  "But there is something that I must say to my people ..."

    So.  Yeah.  Koch is right.

    "My people"? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:34:20 AM EST
    Just who would Obama's "people" be?  African Americans?  Whites?  "My people" sounds like "you people."  

    Nitpicking the speech....


    If you didn't get the point (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:31 AM EST
    That's OK.

    I don't need to repeat it.


    I'm an Obama supporter (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by AdrianLesher on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:23:05 AM EST
    but I will point out that the reference to "Clinton pastor" is to the village of Clinton in Oneida county.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:27 AM EST
    You scored points with that one.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#20)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:03 AM EST
    I was wondering how the Clinton's were connected to the Utica area.

    That was a nice thing to post.


    forgot to add I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:44:29 AM EST
    you are replying to.

    There are three sermons (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:58 AM EST
    That hardly describes the entire church or all the sermons.....

    Check the videos and see if there are any children present...Sunday School is typically where the kids are at--not at the sermons.


    Depends on the church whether (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:34:31 AM EST
    the kids are in the sanctuary during the sermon.  Varies from church to church.  I had to sit through both church and Sunday school as a kid!

    I think it would be a good (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:38:44 AM EST
    idea to find out first before making up one's mind on this....

    Evangelical Churches tend to have a separate Sunday School.....Catholics and Episcopalians, with their emphasis on the Eucharest, have the kids in the main service.....


    Nonetheless, isn't it strange to think of... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:47:22 AM EST
    ..a sermon at your own church as something you would have to shield your children from? In my church, no doubt the kids would like to be shielded from the boredom, but thats another story.

    Actually, at the local Episcopal cathedral (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:57 AM EST
    here, the parents retrieve the kids during the offertory and bring them forward for the Eucharist.  They aren't in the sanctuary during the rest of the service, including the sermon.

    Episcopal Churches (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:53:43 AM EST
    have great leeway....on some things.....Interestingly, the worship services are generally uniform, however, as that is what draws many.....

    Its called liturgical. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:00:03 AM EST
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:15:10 AM EST
    I think the point still stands...Are not the liturgical services one of the main draws for the Episcopal Church?

    On doctrine, you have Bishop Spong and Gene Robinson plus any number of congregations trying align themselves with African Churches....What stays the same is the Book of Common Prayer and the ritual....the liturgy....True?

    In any event, Obama was not attending an Episcopal Church....People don't shout there--a plus as far as I am concerned....But Evangelicals see it as too sedate, I suppose.....There is a cultural difference (between charismatic churches and traditional Protestant and Catholic churches) in how the services are conducted....It is interesting that Huckabee is more charitable here than many Democrats....


    I thought your initial point was (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:23:35 AM EST
    at least by implication that Jeralyn should have checked to make sure kids sit through the sermon at Trinity UCC.  I don't think we've resolved whether in this particular congregation children are present or absent during the sermons.  However, the services are apparently webcast for those curious enough to click the link on Sunday.  I'm not.  

    If one is going to worry (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:27:48 AM EST
    about kids on the internet, there are a lot things that would concern me.....Three sermons over a period of 6-7 years would seem not so high on the list.....

    If any pastor (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:49:49 AM EST
    had done that "riding dirty" bit in front of my kids, they would have heard about it in the form of a "So long, thanks but no thanks." letter.

    And I doubt that (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:08:00 AM EST
    you would like most black evangelical services.  

    There are significant cultural differences, some of which you may not like.  


    I'm not a huge fan of religion. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:15:16 AM EST
    I'm more a Gospel of Matthew person than a wrathful G_d person.  Besides, all that smiting is so Old Testament - they must have missed the passage where Christ told his disciples that his Word superceded anything that they had been taught before.

    Obama is no MLK (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:47 AM EST
    To Edgar08 upstream: Thanks for providing the MLK quote as a poignant point of contrast to what Obama didn't say in his race speech.

    Don't forget President Clinton's (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:26:11 AM EST
    1 Million Man march speech . . .   ;)

    nycstray, do you have a handy link for (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:48:49 AM EST
    President Clinton's 1 Million Man March speech? I've seen it recently, in passing, but don't recall where. It's unfortunate that a lot of folks aren't aware that the Clinton's have talked the talk and walked the walk on the subject of civil rights/race relations.

    I think this is the right one (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:51:17 AM EST
    We had to go listen to the service and (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:51 AM EST
    sermons during Sunday school. It wasn't a church, but I think you're right there's no set rules.

    This (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    seems to be a prevalent argument.  The telling thing is that Obama himself has displayed this sort of preachy condemnation toward his opposition in the Democratic Party so when one sees his pastor behaving in this manner, it instantly fits with Obama's own strategy.

    Here's a Link for You (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:43:24 AM EST
    So? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:31 AM EST
    Nothing inappropriate there at all....

    The attempt to excoriate the Trinity Church has gone way too far.....


    Webcasts and talking points available. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:56:09 AM EST
    At Trinity Sunday School... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    Is not at the same time as the sermom.

    What happened? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by QuakerInABasement on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:24 AM EST
    Earlier this afternoon, somebody was saying it was time to "get back to important issues like universal health care and ending the war in Iraq and how to count the votes of the 2.2 million voters in Florida and Michigan" instead of discussing Mr. Wright.

    What happened?

    no one else was interested (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:46:04 AM EST
    the news is all Wright and sniper and exaggeration stories. And Rush criticizing me. To think we have four more weeks of this till PA....

    btw, not to be nit picky (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:47 AM EST
    or anything, but his honor is the former mayor of NYC, not North Carolina.

    i did some bouncing around to other sites, to get a flavor for how the wright thing, and sen. clinton's interview, are being taken.

    holy cow! it's clear to me that many of those people have gone off their meds! either that, or the aliens came, took them away and replaced them with pod people. what a bunch of screeching nutjobs!

    if you came from another planet and read some of that stuff, having no clue what it was all about, you would, rightfully, assume she had been found guilty of sacrificing virgins in her sen. office, to bathe in their blood.

    they (the rabid obama supporters) have totally lost all connection with reality.

    Not picky at all (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:50:19 AM EST
    I left out the Y in NYC -- just put it back in. When my spelling goes at night, you know I'm downstairs at my laptop instead of upstairs at the desktop. I have 20/20 vision but I just don't see the smaller screen as well. I really appreciate being told of typos. So thanks.

    Kevin Keith (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:00 AM EST
    offered this illuminating explanation of how some of Rev. Wright's most damaging comments (specifically the charge that America invented AIDS) are considered mainstream in much of black society.

    Koch asks how Obama can let his girls sit and listen to Rev. Wright. From my perspective, I can see how the Obamas believe that exposing their daughters to the totality of the black experience--including those parts that are extreme and ignorant--is important. In his speech Obama talked about how Trinity is a representative congregation of black culture, including everyone from the most enlightened to the most ignorant, the poorest of the poor on up to the very wealthy, and with all colors represented.

    Instead of assuming the worst, I imagine the Obamas teaching their girls that it is true that America has an ugly history of abusing black people but that it is also the country that provides them with the privileged life they lead. I also imagine them teaching their daughters that instead of abandoning the black community and disdaining the ignorant myths perpetuated by some, they are called by God to be role models for civic education, self-determination, and true empowerment. That's what I imagine, but I would really like to hear Obama say it himself.

    I also am dumbfounded that the idea that Michelle Obama said she is just now proud of her country in any way is still being perpetuated and accepted by enlightened individuals. She was clearly directing her remarks toward the political arena and the current excitement among voters in America. Sometimes our absolute embrace of ignorance is truly astounding.

    I read the link (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:00:23 AM EST
    I will agree that education about the black experience is a good thing.

    I will not agree that misinformation about HIV is ever a good thing.  I have enormous respect for the way the gay community stood up and demanded the government do something.  


    OT:Teach Your Children Well (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:06 AM EST
    thanks for the vid. I remember all the words and a few concerts ;)

    Well, Imus's remarks (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:10:16 AM EST
    and Wright's about Clinton could float at the same level. And in some cases (gov/aids) Wright's hit a different level.

    Obama said Imus should be fired and he would fire him. A slur is a slur, imo.

    Because that's the question Clinton answered (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:12:48 AM EST
    She would leave the church after hearing those sermons.

    So.  Huckabee made some nice statements above.

    But ask him if he would stay at a church where a preacher was preaching the things Rev. Wright preached.

    That's the relevant question.

    It's the overall message (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:36:07 AM EST
    And yes.  The Trinity congregation should reconsider their relationship with Wright.  

    Check out this Diary.


    If you find yourself listening to a pastor who is appealing to your deepest resentments, who is telling you who to blame instead of how to love, then it might be time to find a new one.

    Check with Fox (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:23 AM EST
    there's more than three. And Obama said none of the ones out there he heard, but heard others . . .

    AND, why would the Church put those so called "three" sermons out for sale to the public if they weren't the Church's message?

    To Make Money. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    Spreading the word of G_d, er, Wright and making a few bucks too.

    Ed Koch? ED KOCH??? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by AdrianLesher on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:28 AM EST
    This would be the same Ed Koch who went after Jesse Jackson when he ran for president.

    The same man whom Joyce Purnick of the New York Times twenty-one years ago properly described as someone who has often acted "provocatively and defensively toward the issue of race"

    Meanwhile, the pastor of the Clinton's (former?) favorite Methodist church has spoken out against the Wright-bashing.

    Just proves that Hillary's is a gospel (none / 0) (#175)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:57:37 AM EST
    of love and forgiveness.  Good for her!

    How does Obama decsribe Wright (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:58:35 AM EST
    and his teachings?

    might want to take a journey through Obama's responses  ;)

    How do sister's shoes feel (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:09:36 AM EST
    Not seeing much walking in "her" shoes.

    In my experience (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:18:56 AM EST
    they cause blisters and the ones that really care about blisters, seem to be the sisters.

    I knew we still had a road ahead of us, but damn, this primary is really depressing me. Or on the flip side, confirming some of my experiences.


    About Subjecting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:08:58 AM EST
    Why subject your children to the politics of hate?  Fair enuf.  On the other hand, why subject your political party and its eventual presidential nominee to the politics of entitlement and hopelessness?  At what point does your anger become less important than a basic willingness to concede the obvious political reality?  At what point do the hopes of your larger party and ideology become more important than the desire to be proved right?

    The Super Delegates will desert Hillary after the North Carolina primary.  The Clintons know this.  Forget the kitchen sink, that means we will all be subjected to the entire kitchen, and you and yours, as previously, will continue to enable and condescend, still certain that you deserve this and no one is going to take it away.

    Thing is?  They already have.  The only question now is when you rediscover the sense of decency required to recognize it.  

    My sense of decency (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:31:55 AM EST
    is alive and well, TYVM, but I note your arrogance and condescension is in hyper-drive.

    Fair Enuf (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:39:39 AM EST
    So that brings up a simple question.  At what point does one stop fighting for a lost cause?  At what point does the larger good prevail over the desire 'to win.'

    Bonus Question.  How did you like Senator Clinton sitting down with Scaife?  Would Sean Hannity be a bridge too far?

    Just curious.


    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:08:02 AM EST
    So when Does Obama step down as he is in my opinion a lost cause in the GE? He's losing his media darling status and the only other thing he's got going for him is his inexperience.

    Well, (none / 0) (#153)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:48 AM EST
    Simple questions answer: I suppose my answers would be similar to yours with the shoe on the other foot.

    Bonus questions answer:As to Scaife- so what? As to Hannity- who cares?


    Help your children be well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Munibond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:45:29 AM EST
    African american health problems have been linked to the stress of discrimination.  Constantly reopening very painful wounds from the past may be understandable but I don't think it contributes to mental health and general well being.

    Should The Jews (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    FOrget the holocaust? Let bygones be bygones?

    No they shouldn't. (none / 0) (#157)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:33:40 AM EST
    And they should be careful on who they train their guns on. So should the Black community. Wright at sensitive times is a cannon with a screw loose.

    Hate Or History? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST
     "The real reason," he said,  "was the lack of interest, by every country, including the U.S., in saving the Jews."  Indeed, in late 1944,  Allied warplanes repeatedly bombed German oil factories adjacent to Auschwitz, some of them less than five miles from the gas chambers, but were never given the order to attack the mass-murder facilities.


    Koch did not mince words with regard to President Roosevelt. "I am sure he is in purgatory, for his sin of abandoning the Jews," he said.  "Yes, there was alot of antisemitism in America in those years, but that is no excuse for Roosevelt's inaction, which was vile.  A leader has to lead.  He has to try to change minds.  He led the Free World to victory in the war, and that should not be minimized, but he lied to the world when he claimed, at the Evian and Bermuda refugee conferences, that arrangements would be made to shelter the Jews.  America failed in its moral responsibility."


    Koch was also critical of the American Jewish leadership's response to the Holocaust.  "Jewish leaders did not do enough," he said.  "Did they get arrested?  Maybe they would have, if some other group was being persecuted.  They should have stormed the gates of the White House to demand action.  But they were afraid of antisemitism--afraid they would 'make things worse'.  Only a few people, like Ben Hecht, spoke out."



    The Sad Thing Is? (1.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    We're seeing, writ large, is how a segment of the Left is willing to assume the support of black voters every election, like seals tossed the appropriate amount of fish, but when it comes to actually attempting to understand the black experience in this country, or more specifically, the history of black churches in same?  Suddenly it's about teaching your children 'hate.'

    Happily, Senator Clinton's own pastor doesn't play this game.

    "The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth," - Dean J. Snyder, Foundry United Methodist Church, March 19, 2008.

    perhaps in the 60's (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:37:39 AM EST
    The Democratic party was fighting for equality and justice for blacks...that was when the Democratic party died in the south and most of them became Republicans.

    Call me naive but I think Hillary has been far more vocal and out in front of issues on race and Obama has done as much as possible to keep from discussing race himself, at least until he absolutely had to.

    Clearly Obama doesn't want a dialog on race.

    As for your impressions of TalkLeft...you are free not to hang out here if you don't like what you are reading. You are also free to oppose diaries/comments but you do little service to that end via comments like the above.

    It's clear from the above that you think you see the truth and most here do not.

    There is a notion in child psychology that during their early years, they believe that the moon follows them, as if in their perspective, all matter and all people exist for their benefit. Ultimately the realization comes that we are all individuals with our own perceptions and our own realities. It is much easier to deal with others when you show them the respect that you wish to receive from them...it's a two way street.

    I agree. Obama is pushing the idea (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    that a vote for him IS a vote for racial harmony, and that that, really, is all you have to do.  This has ENORMOUS appeal to white liberals who would like to wipe out 400 years of guilt with a single pull of a lever.

    perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    we all would love to escape our guilt for anything that easily...but saying it dismisses all other possible reasons that someone might prefer Obama which makes your theory wrong.

    Your comment reminds me of the Jack Lemmon movie - definitely a favorite of mine... "How to Murder Your Wife" where he stands accused of murdering his missing, Italian wife.

    His lawyer implores the all male jury to 'push the button' (a chalk button he drew on the railing to the jury box) and your wife would simply disappear...and they did.

    In real life though, things are never quite so simple. People are not so simple.

    Obama has consistently to downplay the notions of his race publicly and to maximize the votes from his race via a pattern of accusation via the back channels to the media which loves the controversy.

    Nowhere has he made it clear that racial issues are part of his agenda.

    Until it became a liability, he chose not to speak about race at all.


    the media meme is changing (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:04:24 AM EST
    before our eyes and beneath out feet.
    last night, while channel surfing, I caught a few minutes of Maureen Dowd explaining to Larry King between coquettish pouts that while sniper gate may have taken the spotlight for a day the pastor disaster would be back.  it was not going away and that it had basically killed any chance Obama had of winning against McCain in the fall.  MAUREEN DOWD.  the unchallenged queen of the Clinton haters said this.
    then this morning I watched Joe Scarboro go into much greater detail on the same subject.  he went so far as to say he was starting to like Hillary, she was tough.  all the while Mica and Cleatus (or what ever his name is) tried to interject "butts" and Joe was having not part of it.  according to him Obamas goose is pretty much cooked.
    also pretty much universally the "heads" were saying last night and this morning that Hillary answered a question about the pastor and she was not only perfectly correct to do so but that her answer was exactly right and was, in fact, what most voters were thinking.  and I absolutely agree.

    Capt Howdy it is good to hear someone (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by athyrio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:17:50 AM EST
    is coming to their senses...about time...hope it lasts and that the super d's listen before it is too late....

    Her pastor would likely disagree (none / 0) (#147)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:16:59 AM EST
    with her on her response.


    She's going someplace even McCain refuses to go on this and your applauding her for it.


    her pastor is not running (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:25:06 AM EST
    she answered a question.  it was a valid question and it was a perfectly valid answer.
    and per the moderators wishes I will not go back and forth on the subject.
    you have every right to your opinion.  hers, as I said, matches most voters.
    it was also politically smart and ruthless.
    good.  we have not seen enough of that IMO.

    The sole existence of Pastors is (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Dancing Bear on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM EST
    to spread the word, teach the message, and build the flock.

    When this is how you go about it you can expect there will be discord.

    Their job is to teach us that they know more about God than we do. They will drum beat into our heads what they believe or how they interpret things to get us to fall in line behind them and therefore support their Church. Their purpose is to convince us that they are speaking for God.

    God bless America for giving a tax free bully pulpit for these people to consume the minds of our children. Indoctrination into a church and it's beliefs is done by repeating the message until it becomes "truth" without investigation. That's why the Pastor is the Shepherd and we are fondly called the flock (sheep).

    I never heard anything hateful about ethnicity, sexual orientation or anything even close while I attended church. I do not see the pulpit as a place for politics. God doesn't know where the borders of America are.I think he/she has bigger issues to attend to if I believe at all.

    Pastors should follow the teachings of their religion and not soley rely on their personal experiences as being divinely inspired. They have a choice in what message they deliver. We have the choice to walk away from that message.  

    If we choose not to then we are basically in agreement with that message. We are allowing the Pastor's words to take the place of God's.

    In the end we will all find out just how right we were.  Or how wrong. If we find out we were wrong we can go through eternity recalling all the lives we ruined by what we "came to beleive".

    Are you familiar with (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM EST
    The "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male."?

    Because if you were, this article from the WaPo citing a  Rand Corp. and Oregon State University study   wouldn't surprise you at all.

    Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

    More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

    A slight majority said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

    Two more quotes of interest by  Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior

    "This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

    Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

    This NY Times article from 1990, might also be of interest to you.

    "Because of who's being devastated the most, and growing up in the U.S. and knowing the history of slavery and racism in this country," Mr. Brown said, "you can't be black and not feel that AIDS is some kind of experiment, some kind of plot to hit undesirable minority populations." Mr. Brown, 30 years old, virtually apologized for his belief, saying, "I hope I don't sound too radical, because I'm not."

    "I don't want to believe that AIDS is some kind of Government plot," he said. Then, pausing, he added: "But I guess I do. I do believe it."

    Not every AA feels this way, but significant numbers do.

    I think the purpose of a leader (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:42:15 AM EST
    is to "lift up" people.

    If you believe that the truth will set you free, then what do untruths do?


    been there, done that (4.33 / 3) (#164)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:45:12 AM EST
    I respect your opinion, but disagree that these issues are causally linked.

    It would be like saying that, because of the Holocaust, rabbis are justified in preaching to their flocks that certain diseases currently in the population have been intentionally invented by Germans to perpetrate genocide on Jews.

    The Tuskegee experiments and other atrocities cannot be deplored enough. But that doesn't excuse deliberately spreading lies and misinformation today about medical facts.

    I think it is appalling to insult the intelligence of African Americans by saying things like that.


    I am not justifying anything (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:55:36 AM EST
    I am pointing out why some might believe these things and that significant numbers do.

    You can argue whether or not what is believed is true, you cannot argue that there are not significant numbers of AA who believe this is true.

    As to a causal relationship, we know the belief is there, I only offer a reason why you should not be surprised. Can anyone offer a better reason why some AA believe this to be true. And no, it isn't just because the Rev. Wrights of the world  told them. To believe this sort of thing, you not only have to be told, but there has to be something which makes what you are told plausible.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    I guess I misinterpreted your comment then and I apologize.

    So would you agree, then, that despite some historical events which could lead to some people believing false propaganda, that it serves no good purpose for leaders such as Rev. Wright to sow medical lies and misinformation today?


    Terrible cross examination technique (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:31:06 AM EST
    can see it coming a mile away.

    I don't believe that Aids is a government plot. Therefore quite naturally I don't think such rumors should be spread.

    That said, I still understand why my fellow Americans might think differently.

    Consider this: The Tuskeegee story is true. It is also true the government sponsored LSD experiments; they sponsored various shock treatments to wipe out memory; they entered into cockamamie plots to kill Castro. They lied to us about Gulf of Tonkin, they lied to us about Iraq. They lied to us about marijuana.

    I don't think our government is out to get AA, but I am not sure our elected leaders value life (black or white) very much. I don't believe it is much different than anywhere else either. Man's hubris is breathtaking and  Man's inhumanity to man is well documented.

    The real racial problem I see, is no one wants to see the other's point of view.


    The world's smallest violin (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM EST
    Couldn't play a better tune.

    Guess what? This IS a Democratic site and it IS a left site. Clinton is running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. It is arguable that MORE DEMOCRATS like her than Obama. Just because she isn't your preferred candidate, and just because Obama hasn't sealed the deal and has problems that are pointed out here changes none of that.

    If you want an echo chamber of your views, you have several choices.

    If your ultimate goal is to unite us all into one happy Dem family (as long as it is YOUR candidate that is nominated), rather than telling us we are all dumb meenies to not dump our candidate, why don't you try harder to calm the waters and say "this too shall pass"?

    I'm just sayin'.... Ya don't gotta....

    And make sure you ask the daughter about it (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    Amazing how someone asked Chelsea if the Monica scandal had damaged Hillary Clinton's reputation. Her answer was good. And then he got to appear on CBS. 15 mins of fame. First of all, you do not ask the children and secondly, the guy was looking for that fame. Now, would he ask Caroline about her Uncle's bridge incident? I doubt it. Would he ask Laura about her husband's past dependency problems? Would he ask Michele? I don't think they should have to answer those questions. They belong with the person directly.  

    Just (3.50 / 2) (#101)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:56:56 AM EST
    wondering why you call yourself stop complaining when you do so very much complaining. Or is that just meant for anyone that does not agree with you? Just wondering.

    Sadly, it seems... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:08:45 AM EST
    Atrios is going down the rabbit hole.

    And, according to Josh's logic here... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:22:00 AM EST
    Josh became a member of the vast right wing conspiracy the day he referred to Drudge as a viable source on the Obama-nomad dress picture (though it may have been in November, 2007, when he had nothing to say about Tim Russert's behavior in his second to last debate, since we know Josh's outraged response to Russert's last debate).

    So, if Josh is a member of the VRWC by his own logic, what is his intention here: 1) is Josh trying to fool us into thinking that Clinton has joined the VRWC also, or 2) is Josh just speaking to fellow conspirator since Clinton really did commit to being a card carrying member of the VRWC, or 3) is Josh's irrational suspicion of all things Clinton simply morphing into a kind of paranoia that results in a harmonic convergence of the many conspiracies floating around in his head?


    I'll take 3 to block please... LOL n/t (none / 0) (#149)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    Hillary Rodham Clinton: Not Ready To Make Nice (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:24:22 AM EST
    Hi Oje, not a reply to your post. I'm just tagging onto Jeralyn's opening with a YouTube music video.

    Here's a new Hillary YouTube video with a pictorial retrospective of her years of public service set to the Dixie Chicks song "Not Ready to Make Nice". I found it very moving and persuasive. (So I'm a sap.)

    Pass it on.


    Beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:51:26 AM EST
    beautiful, wonderful video. I was screaming YES, YES through the whole thing.

    Hi, I like that too... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:12 AM EST
    and, I will piggyback on your post to add:

    Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is not a "fringe" publication in its market, as Josh suggests: 100K on weekdays, 150K on weekends, and second only to the Post-Gazette.

    Also, it was a meeting with the editorial board (uh, endorsement), to which Clinton joked:

    "'It's so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do,' she said."

    I am so tired of the slipshod conspiracy theorizing of the left blogosphere. They are seriously undermining the years and years of analysis that the left has done to demonstrate the Republican hold on our media and on our government. These so-called left bloggers take our most profound insights into the operation of the media and turn it into oppo-research for Senator Obama.

    Their actions trivialize the work that the entire left blogosphere has done to expose the illiberal media and reduce our critique of the rightwing noise machine to rank conspiracy wankery. All of the puffery and bloviating of these bloggers in order to characterize Clinton as a mastermind of media manipulation makes it harder to make stick the real questions about the media's relationship with McCain and Republicans.


    Have you checked out (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:03:33 AM EST

    after the video comes up, you can click on 'more shows' in the lower right corner and get play lists. I've seen a few very good videos on there. I need to find the link, but one is a young woman giving her China speech.

    Here's an interview with her:



    nycstray et al: thanks for viewing and sharing. (none / 0) (#68)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:33:12 AM EST
    I have a penchant for hard-core rhetoric, but there's also no underestimating the power of music and images.

    Thanks, I needed that. (none / 0) (#138)
    by suisser on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:03:48 AM EST
    wow, that was powerful (none / 0) (#156)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:31:46 AM EST
    I especially liked the words about can you afford 8 years without Hillary (paraphrasing). Powerful.

    wow (none / 0) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:38:10 AM EST
    thanks for starting my day out like that

    The first link (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:01 AM EST
    She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.


    He'll become unacceptable on his own. She's doing him -- and all of us a favor -- by vetting him.


    Just damaging him (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:01 AM EST
    for the General....Vetting has come to cover a multitude of sins (of negative campaigning)....

    Maria Cantwell, Democratic Senator from the state of Washington, who has endorsed Hillary, has said late today that she will vote for the leader in pledged delegates at the convention.....It is the pledged delegates, she reasons, not the popular vote, that matters because delegates are what it takes to win the nomination.

    The more "vetting" Hillary does, the more likely the superdelegates will step in sooner to coalesce around Obama.....    


    No (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:32:49 AM EST
    he obviously needs practice weathering these storms.

    This sounds to me (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by K Lynne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    like somewehat circular logic.

    That smacks of "Decidering" (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:43:03 AM EST
    The SDs should let this play out, for appearances sake if nothing else.

    Why wouldn't Obama and the SDs want as much legitimacy as they can get?


    Second link (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donna Darko on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:17 AM EST
    The Clintons reach across the aisle too which is something Obama is praised for. Newsweek, November 2007:

    He and Scaife believe Clinton's life since leaving office has been "very laudable," and that he is doing "very important work representing the country when the U.S. is widely resented in the world." Whatever the reasons for Scaife's change of heart, it's not hard to figure out why the Clintons would embrace a former nemesis. As they prepared for Hillary's presidential run, the Clintons made quiet attempts to disarm, or at least neutralize, some of their most vocal opponents. Last year Hillary accepted an offer from Rupert Murdoch to host a fund-raiser for her Senate campaign. The New York Times reported that the Clinton camp has also made efforts to open a line of communication to blogger Matt Drudge, who has served as a conduit for anti-Clinton GOP leaks. Bill Clinton and Richard Mellon Scaife are now members of a "mutual admiration society." Cue the apocalypse.

    New HBO documentary on autistic children (none / 0) (#19)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:28:37 AM EST
    Autism: The Musical premiered tonight and will play through most of April.  Stephen Stills son Henry is one of the five children that are featured.  

    It's a wonderful way to spend an hour and a half away from politics.  I couldn't keep from getting a little teary eyed at the end.  The kids are amazing and truly grab your heart.

    Too bad it's cable. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:47:17 AM EST
    But since I do lunch with my son's special ed class several times a month, I don't know if I need an HBO special.

    (Now I just need to convince his new teacher that he isn't autistic just because he has a serious speech delay.)


    Now Go Ask Huckabee (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:51 AM EST
    How long he'd be a member of TUCC?

    Naw (none / 0) (#91)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:07:01 AM EST
    Ask Huckabee to release HIS sermons!

    Methinks that Huckabee was schmoozing for the sake of schmoozing.  He's very good at it.  But before McCain got the nom, people were looking at closely at Huckabee and I was really hoping he would get the nom because he appears to have an entire cemetery worth of skeletons in his murky past.  One of those skeletons is Huckabee's sermons.  I have no idea what his sermons were like, but from what I know of him, I doubt they were temperate, Love-thy-neighbor speeches.


    Note to Obama re. Nancy Reagan Endorsement (none / 0) (#81)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:12 AM EST
    Obama et al may be disappointed by the breaking (CNN) news that Nancy Reagan has just endorsed McCain.

    Child of the 60s (none / 0) (#82)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:58 AM EST
    We marched against the war in Vietnam and won.
    We fought for the vote for those old enough to die in said war, and won.
    We supported the war... on poverty.
    We were lied to, but those that lied paid a price.
    The house of Nixon came tumbling down for spying on Americans.
    Those were good times.
    I miss them.

    Sure (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:32:09 AM EST
    I see it as one pastor advocating for a candidate and the other candidate being a pastor.

    Clinton is running a campaign that puts winning before anything else.  Obama has got some issues with electability.  Both sides have a base that more and more are building a deep resentment towards the other candidate. A huge percentage 20% from recent polls are at a place where they say they will vote for McCain if their candidate is not chosen as the nominee.  And at this point I'm one of them.  Clinton knows the only way to win is to completely destroy Obama's chances in the general election.  I've never been a fan of tearing people down to build yourself up.  So continue the propeganda of TalkLeft perhaps in 2012 Clinton will run.  But something tells me that we are just ensuring another 4 years of our constitutional rights being infringed on, another 4 years in Iraq, 4 more years of millions of Americans not having healthcare, 4 more years of economic woes and 4 more years where the supreme court justices will be selected on a criteria that doesn't match our Democratic values.  Well I think I just convinced myself to vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.  Hey if you want Clinton to win then move to North Carolina or Oregon and help her campaign.  Or donate money or help from your home.  Don't try to destroy the leading Democratic candidate to build your candidate up.  Or at least question him on issues but please don't buy into this ideatto create a racial divide so that you can increase your white male demographic.  If you do that your spelling doom in the general election for both candidates.  

    Obama is a grown man. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:02:17 AM EST
    He's been playing at politics for quite a while now.  I trust he can handle a little adversity, a few challenges.

    After all, his wife wasn't caught fooling around, his business dealings weren't investigated by an entire federally funded task force for years.

    Compared to Hillary, Obama has a walk in the park.  But if you want, I'll pray for him.


    They both put winning above all else. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:27:40 AM EST
    Obama went negative first. Obama was the first to suggest his supporters would not support Clinton. Obama is actively blocking the vote in two major states to win.

    People blithely say Clinton will do anything to win. Do you forget it is Obama who sued to kick all off his opponents off the ballot in his first election? The people in his district did not even get the opportunity to vote. Don't kid yourself. The Democratic Party is simply Obama's vehicle. If the best course of the party is for him to step aside, it isn't going to happen.


    He couldn't clear the ballot this time (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:03:16 AM EST
    So he worked to get rid of the elections instead!

    thats perfect (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    this is a perfect snapshot of the Obama campaign.
    decry the politics of division out of one side of our mouth and say you wont vote for anyone but "your candidate" out of the other.
    most Hillary supporters here say they will vote for the democratic nominee.
    take a lesson.

    Jeralyn, Thank You. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:08:23 AM EST

    Koch is... (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:55:23 AM EST
    largely if not completely irrelevant but the notion is not.

    The notion of Barack's and Michelle's daughters going to that church is interesting in that it makes it clear that they don't see any disconnect between the church teachings and their own belief system but neither do I.

    The simple fact is whether those children go to that church, they will indeed encounter racism so it's logical that the church provide the tools, the identity and the confidence to deal with the rest of the country's race problem, which still exists, even in Chicago.

    What I find striking is that blacks should be pissed off. American's in general should be pissed off.

    All of the time and attention devoted to the minutiae introduced by the focus on identity and personality in this contest has done nothing to further the dialog about the real issues this country faces. For all the words used on television, blogs, newspapers, etc., we are no more aware of the the problems nor the solutions.

    Do I believe that Barack Obama is any more capable of achieving a meaningful dialog on these issues? No.

    Do I believe that Hillary Clinton is any more capable of achieving a meaningful dialog on these issues? Yeah, I actually do...that was one of the curious things with Bill Clinton...the surprising candor on issues that we faced. Granted, this is a subjective and superficial analysis.

    Ultimately, it is all about the children and the country/world we hand off to them. So to come full circle to the Obama 'girls', one has to wonder if taking them to their church is any worse than some of the other churches around this country which are preaching hate for Muslims. Religion is a tool that is used to frighten, control, shape our thought and that tool isn't only abused at the UCC.

    If it weren't OT (none / 0) (#134)
    by magisterludi on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:48:02 AM EST
    I'd tell you my theory on who REALLY ate the apple.

    And don't you just love (none / 0) (#136)
    by hookfan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    the over generalization that America has nothing to do with the way of christ? Nothing-- really? Absolutely nothing? Freedom of religion and the protected right to proclaim the gospel isn't nothing.

    George McGovern... (none / 0) (#160)
    by AlladinsLamp on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:39:06 AM EST
    channels Geraldine Ferraro:


    "I have a feeling that in this country, where we're at today in our thinking, it's going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," McGovern told The Associated Press today. "I wish that weren't true ... I'd love to see Hillary as president."

    He's right and I've believed that (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:45:38 AM EST
    all along.   Thing is, a lot of "educated" men believe that the genders are deeply, genetically, different.  Wired up differently.   In fact, the more educated the man the more he believes that.  They point at fMRI studies (very few of which have been replicated at this early stage, showing their results may or may not be true).    

    One's identity as a male or female forms very early, like ages 2-5, whereas racial identity comes in later.  So most men are just really really devoted to their maleness from an early age.   Their race, especially for white people whose race is not called attention to, is very secondary.  Plus there's probably less evidence of any kind that race and skin color has genetic correlates.  

    All that said, I know Hillary is at least as smart as Bill.  She has demonstrated it over and over again.  If she got a sex change we'd all be fine.   My favorite sex change story is of the female-to-male scientist who was told by someone not in the know, that  "your work is much better than  your sister's."


    he might be right (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:52:42 AM EST
    Im incredulous.  I dont doubt that what you say may be, in some broad sense, true.
    the threshold question, for anyone but sadly particularly for women, for commander in chief is toughness.
    I honestly do not think there is a man woman or child in america who does not think Hillary is tough  enough. no matter how much they may hate her. I just dont.  it not even a question or an issue.

    Ha, you're so right! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:57:19 AM EST
    "Thing is, a lot of "educated" men believe that the genders are deeply, genetically, different.  Wired up differently.   In fact, the more educated the man the more he believes that."

    The best example of this is the horrible debacle at Harvard with Larry Summers statements about men and women and his subsequent denouement.

    "My favorite sex change story is of the female-to-male scientist who was told by someone not in the know, that  "your work is much better than  your sister's."

    Ha. You're not by chance referring to Roughgarden? Another great story from Harvard.


    Don't recall the name. But the person (none / 0) (#185)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    was touring and gave a talk in San Francisco which was covered by the media.   I remembered the story because it captured the situation so nicely.   This person also said it's amazing how much more "talk" time he gets now.  People actually listen instead of interrupting all the time.  

    Thanks for CSN clip. I love those (none / 0) (#162)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:40:51 AM EST
    guys and, boy, what the primary needs now, is love sweet love.  That's the only thing that there's much too little of.  No not just for some, but for everyone.  

    So, tell us, which president would (none / 0) (#167)
    by BlueMerlin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:47:53 AM EST
     you prefer we'd had in the 90s?   Nixon?  Carter?  Eisenhower?  Someone from another country perhaps.   Name one person living or dead, over the past 50 years, that you think we SHOULD have had in the 90s.  

    language and custom (none / 0) (#182)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:05:34 AM EST
    are the tools and you need to hear the language spoke to know how to combat the words that are hostile to your being.

    Fills their minds with crazy thoughts when they should be focusing on algebra is too limiting and simplistic. It assumes that growth and development must be channeled in ways that you choose when the mind must embrace thoughts on a diverse range of subjects rather than to be limited.

    If you don't like the message that Wright was speaking, I can understand - feel free to speak up.

    If you feel as I do, the message isn't the problem, but religion in general is the problem, then you would feel that subjecting your children to the messages, regardless of who is the pastor is likely to cause conflict within impressionable minds.

    Surely we as a culture subject our children to all sorts of absurd falsehoods starting with the toothfairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, etc. Eventually children have to sort out why mommy and daddy filled their heads with this nonsense.

    How is that helping them fight racism? By giving them community, identity, commonality and language. Certainly teaching them algebra isn't going to help them in their struggle with racism.

    Crawford is funny (none / 0) (#195)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    He makes a great point, the repeated visual of Hillary landing in Bosnia does benefit her.  A visual of her looking presidential in an international setting.  So there Obama girl.  

    since I am Jewish (none / 0) (#199)
    by white n az on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    I'm not at all concerned with the notions about who killed Jesus, nor if he is white or black...I have that luxury to be sure. I was convinced that I was in fact responsible after seeing Mel Gibson's movie.

    In fact, I have seen so many crazy stupid Christian notions that tend to lump them all in the same boat.

    My faith of course, has it's share of morons and the leaders are likewise inclined to try and ram their twisted beliefs on their believers so there is no better here.

    But your central point seems to be that the sentiments expressed by Jeremiah Wright 'discourage the ability to critique' or in your previous...'makes them far less prepared to deal with racism' and I simply don't agree and you haven't advanced the argument either time.

    Comments are closed (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    thread being cleaned. Dig Dug Boy, it's not your place to count others comments. You can delete your censored tag line and comment counts now. They're distracting and offensive to other commenters.